People v. Valadez CA4/3

Filed 7/1/16 P. v. Valadez CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G052774

v. (Super. Ct. No. 97CF0042)

MANUEL ALCALA VALADEZ, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order made after judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Sheila F. Hanson, Judge. Affirmed. Caroline R. Hahn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

In July 1997, defendant Manual Alcala Valadez pleaded guilty to simple possession and possession for sale of heroin and cocaine, and admitted various sentence enhancements. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11350, subd, (a), 11351, 11370, subds. (a) & (c); Pen. Code, § 12022.1.) The court sentenced him to two years in prison. In September 2015, defendant filed a motion to vacate his guilty plea on the grounds that (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the plea; (2) the court did not properly advise him of the potential immigration consequences of the plea; (3) the court failed to provide a Spanish language interpreter, and (4) a writ of coram nobis provided an avenue for granting the requested relief. Defendant submitted a declaration in support of the motion which stated: “Neither my Public Defender nor the court advised me that entering such a plea would have immigration consequences for me. I never would have pled guilty to the drug charge and agreed to this disposition if I had known that it would affect my immigration status. My primary language at the time was Spanish. I did not speak, read, write, or understand English fluently at the time. I did not have an interpreter present at the time to translate the information into Spanish. [¶] . . . Had the court advised me of the immigration consequences, at least I would have consulted with an immigration attorney and had the opportunity of obtaining a safe disposition to my conviction, thereby still pleading to charges that would not have had any immigration consequences. The court also failed to notify me that I could be deported or be subject to removal proceedings upon entering a guilty plea.” The court denied the motion and found: (1) it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the ineffective assistance claim and, besides, there was no deficient performance or resulting prejudice; (2) defendant was properly advised by the court and, in any event, he made no showing of prejudice; (3) the record did not support the claim defendant did not understand English or the proceedings; and (4) defendant was not eligible for relief by writ of coram nobis. Defendant timely appealed.